You are on page 1of 2


Case Title: Patricio Gone, complainant vs Atty. Macario Ga, respondent

G.R. Number & Date: A.C. No. 7771. April 6, 2011.

Nature of the Case: Stemmed from the complaint for disciplinary action dated Oct. 23, 1989 filed by Patricio
Gone against Atty. Macario Ga before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Its because of Atty. Gas
failure to reconstitute or turn over the records of the case in his possession.

Petitioners: Patricio Gone. He sought the legal services of Atty. Ga in NLRC Case entitled Patricio Gone vs
Solid Mills,Inc. This case was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and was elevated to the NLRC.

Respondents: Atty. Macario Ga


o Complainant alleged that on Dec. 13, 1989, the NLRC building in Intramuros, Manila was burned and
among the records destroyed was his appealed case.
o As early as March 8, 1984, Atty. Ga had obtained a certification from the NLRC that the records of Mr.
Gones NLRC case were burned. Despite Atty. Gas knowledge of the destruction of records, Atty. Ga
did not do anything to reconstitute the records of the appealed case.
o Complainant sent a letter to Atty. Ga requesting him to return the records of the case in his possession.
Atty. Ga has failed to turn over the records which has caused great injustice to Mr. Gone and his family.
It must be noted that Atty. Ga was a relative of Mr. Gones wife (daughter of Atty. Gas first cousin).
o IBP Commissioner Gonzalez-Delos Reyes issued an order directing Atty. Ga to file his answer on the
o Atty. Ga in his response explained that although the NLRC building caught fire, he was relieved to know
when he received summons from the NLRC setting the case for hearing. However, complainant failed
to appear in the two scheduled hearings set by the NLRC. For such absence, the NLRC allegedly
shelved their case. Atty. Ga averred that had it not been for the instant complaint, he would not have,
as he never, heard back from Gone since 1984. What he last heard of him was that Mr. Gone
abandoned his own family way back in 1978.
o Several hearings were set for the case but these were reset for failure of one or both parties to appear.
o Commissioner of the IBP on Bar Discipline recommended that Atty. Ga be censured for violation of
Rule 18.03 of the CPR and directed Atty. Ga to reconstitute or turn over the records of the case to
complainant with stern warning that failure to do so would merit a stiffer penalty.
o Atty. Ga still did not turn over the records of the case despite the directive order from the Commissioner
of the IBP.

ISSUE/s: 1. Whether or not Atty. Ga violated Rule 15.03 of the CPR? - YES
2. Whether or not Atty. Ga violated Rules 18.03 & 18.04 of the CPR? - YES

FALLO: Wherefore, respondent Macario Ga is hereby fined in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00)
for his failure to comply with the directive in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-94 dated 19 September 2007 of the Board
of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Ga is given a final warning that a more drastic
punishment shall be imposed upon him should he fail to comply with the directive for him to reconstitute and turn
over the records of the case to complainant.


1. YES. Respondents sentiments against complainant Gone is not a valid reason for him to renege on his
obligation as a lawyer. The moment he agreed to handle the case, he was bound to give it his utmost
attention, skill and competence. Public interest requires that he exerts his best efforts and all his learning
and ability in defense of his clients cause. Those who perform that duty with diligence and candor not
only safeguard the interests of the client, but also serve the ends of justice. They do honor to the bar and
help maintain the communitys respect for the legal profession.

If respondent believed that he will not be able to represent complainant effectively because of what the
latter has done to his family, then he should have withdrawn his services as a lawyer. Had it not been for
complainants insistence, his labor case would have forever remained dormant. The fact that respondent
is retained as the lawyer of the complainant, he was duty bound to give his best service. His failure to do
so constitutes an infringement of his oath.

2. YES. Respondent Atty. Ga breached these duties when he failed to reconstitute or turn over the records
of the case to his client, herein complainant Gone. His negligence manifests lack of competence and
diligence required of every lawyer. His failure to comply with the request of his client was a gross betrayal
of his fiduciary duty and a breach of the trust reposed upon him by his client.

Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within
a reasonable time to the clients request for information.

Respondents unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP is not only
irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct
is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey Court orders and
processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with Court directives being themselves
officers of the Court.

As an officer of the Court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere
request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the
orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.


All told, We could suspend respondent for his transgressions. Considering, however, that he is already in the twilight of his
career and considering further that he was not entirely to be blamed for the archiving of the labor case, complainants
absence during the hearings being contributory therein, We deem the penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000.00 sufficient
sanction under the circumstances. Such consideration would be more in line with the very purpose of administrative cases
against lawyers, that is, not so much to punish but to instill discipline in them, as well as, protect the integrity of the Court
and shelter the public from the misconduct and inefficiency of lawyers.